30 Seconds SummaryExercise Science: What is it good for?
- Exercise science faces backlash from traditional strength coaches who feel threatened by evidence-based practices.
- Critics argue that many exercise studies aren't relevant to athletes since they focus more on general health or non-athletic populations like the elderly.
- Opponents also claim exercise scientists ask obvious or irrelevant questions, misunderstanding that basic research is necessary to form more complex hypotheses.
- There's a misconception that most exercise science studies target untrained individuals, which critics believe dilutes their applicability to trained athletes.
- Some coaches reject scientific findings if they contradict established beliefs, preferring anecdotal evidence over scientific data.
- Critics of exercise science argue that it is unreliable because it's subject to change, failing to see that adaptability in the face of new evidence is a strength of the scientific method.
- Despite the criticism, many opponents of exercise science might lack a deep understanding of its methodology or fear being proven wrong.
- Good coaches, whether they realize it or not, use a form of the scientific method in their training approaches by observing, hypothesizing, testing, and adjusting based on results.
- The future of exercise science looks promising with ongoing research relevant to athletic performance, signaling potential changes in perception among critics.
- There is no inherent conflict between evidence-based and experience-based coaching; both methods can complement each other to improve athlete training and performance.
Stronger By Science
Greg Nuckols
